I got confused on what is the reward scheme [quote] It gets a reward of r>0 for standing on the blue button for the first time. [/quote] would read to me that blue button gives a reward one time when stepped on but red button does nothing. The story of the post seems to intend that first stepping on the red button will prevent the blue button from giving out any rewards. “blue button is the first button pressed” vs “what happens when blue button is entered for the first time”
Slider
Karma: 575
Well it clarifies that the first of the three kind of directions was intended.
If that is a miss what do hits look like? If I have a belief of 50%, 50% coin at what point can I say that the distribution is “confirmed”. If the true distribution is 49.9999% vs 50.0001% and that counts as a miss that would make almost all beliefs to be misses with hits being rare theorethical possibiliies. So within rounding error all beliefs that reference probablities not 1 or 0 have meta-certainty 0.
Note that in calculating p-values the null hypothesis is not ever delineated a clear miss but there always remains a finite possiblity that noise was the source of the pattern.
Probability is easy to resolve when things have clear outcomes. I don’t find it trivial to apply it to probability distributions. Say that you belive that a coin has 50% chance of coming up heads and 50% chance of coming up tails. Later it turns out that the coin has 49.9% chance of coming up heads and 49.9% chance of coming up tails and 0.2% chance of coming up on it’s side. Does the previous belief count as a hit or miss for the purposes of meta-certainty? If I can’t agree what hits and misses are then I can’t get to ratios.
One could also mean that a belief like “probability for world war” could get different odds when asked in the morning, afternoon or night while dice odds get more stable answers. There “belief professed to when asked” has clear outcomes. But that is harder to link to the subject matter of the belief.
It could also point to “order of defence” kind of thing, which beliefs would be first in line to be changed. High degree of this kind could mean a thing like “this belief is so important to my worldview that I would rather believe 2+2=5 than disbelieve it”. “conviction” could describe it but I think subjective degrees of belief are not supposed point to things like that.
Throwing your life away sounds a lot like throwing away a lot of possibility.
Stable career paths read to me as very surprising to be a condition. The implication is that if we don’t have scientists we can get screwed? But what if science gets done but not by professionals but citizens or hobbyists?
Shift toward a negative freedom of thought to the right to be stupid coul dlead to idiocrazy or that scientists exist but instead of doing science they do politics or a kind of orthodoxy production. European style positive right for universal education could keep the voting populus science literate and keep important science to inform political decision making.
Welll the specification would be “jobs of roughly equal effort” which I guess I left implicit in a bad way.
I think you are arguing that the essence will depend on the efficiency ratios but I think the shared vs not-shared property will overwhelm efficiency considerations. That is if job efficiency varies between 0.1 and 10 and the populations are around 10000 and 100000 then 1000 public effort lives at typical bad efficiency will seem comparable to 1 private life at good efficiency while at population level doing the private option at bad efficiency would be comparable to getting the public option done. Thus any issue affecting the “whole” community will overwhelm any private option.
It is crucial that the public task is finite and shared. If you could start up independent “benefit all” extra projects (and get them done alone) the calculus would be right. One could try point ot the error also via “marginal result” in that yes it is an issue of 1000 lives but if your participation doesn’t make or break the project then it is of zero impact. So one should be indifferent rather than thinking it is the utmost importance. If it can partially succeed then the impact is the increase in success not the total success. Yet when you think stuff like “hungry people in africa” your mind probably refers to the total issue/success.
If I am asking what is the circumference of a circle at lot of people would accept pi as the answer. Somebody could insist that I tell the radius as essential information to determine how long the circumference would be. Efficiency is not essential to the phenomenon that I try to point out.
Why is it mandatory? What happens if I don’t specify?
I wrote it as weighing the importance but I had an incling it is more of a progress about how much is done. If one has access to accurate effort information then utilitarian calculus is easy. However sometimes there are uncertainties about them and some logics do not require or access this information. Or like you know exactly how cool it would be to be on the moon but you don’t have an idea whether it is expensive or super duper expensive and you need to undertake a research program during which the costs clear up. Or you could improve healthcare or increase equanimity of justice. So does that mean that because cost are harder to estimate in one field vs other fields, predictable costs get selected over more nebulous ones? Decisions under big cost uncertainty and difficulty in comparing values are not super rare. But still a principle of “if you use a lot of resources for something it better be laudable in some sense” survives.
For example in the case that an effective selection mechanism is not found there is danger that 1 person actually does the job, 1 tries to help but is only half effective and 98 people stand and watch as the two try to struggle. In the other direction high probablity of being a useless bystander might make that 0 people attempt the job. If everybody just treated jobs as jobs without distintion on how many others might try it the jobs with most “visiblity” will likely be overcrowded or overcrowded relative to their otherwise importance. In a way what has sometimes been described as a “bias” dilution of responcibility can be seen as a hack / heuristic to solve the situation. It tries to balance so that in a typical size crowd the expected amount of people taking action is a small finite number, by raising the bar to action according to how big a crowd you are in. It is a primitive kind of coordination but even that helps a lot.
Overtly sacrifical behaviour could be analysed as giving way too much more importance to other peoples worries, that is removing the dilution of responciblity without replacing it with anything more advanced. Somebody that tries to help everybody in a village will as a small detail spend a lot of time salesmanning across the village and the transit time alone might cut into the efficiency even before considering factors like greater epistemological distance (you spend a lot of time interviewing people whether they are fine or not) and not being fit for every kind of need (you might be good at carpentry but that one requires masonry). Taking these somewhat arbitrary effects effectively into account you could limit yourself to a small geographical area (less travelling), do stuff only upon request (people need to know what their needs are) or only do stuff you know how to do (do the carpentry for the whole country but no masonry for anyone). All move into the direction that a need somebody has will go unaddressed by you personally.
I can see a lot of good philosophy in “fruit seller doesn’t pose an argument, but an option for exchange” and in the trade value of the item not speaking to the items general worth.
In the wrestling ring it coudl be tempting if the reigning champion had stark wrestling opinions to assume he is correct and he might have the attitude that anybody that disagrees with him should try to beat him. Recognising that appeal to the stick is fallacious is beneficial in that you can realise why he could stay wrong if his is is incorrect about where his wrestling prowness comes from.
The greek were known to be annoying and bothering others by challenging their logic and concepts. Rational wrestling might not be the be all end all of wrestling but rationality does wrestling good.
If millions of trolleys are about and millions of people self-sacrifice to fix them then suicidal fixing can be a valid policy. Baneling ants exist and are selected for.
The impulse to value self-sacrife might come form the default position that people are very good at looking after their own interest. So at a coarse level any “self-detrimenal” effect is likely to come from a complicated or abstract moral reasoning. But then there is the identity blind kind of reasoning. If you think that people that help others should not be tired all the time, if person A helps others and is tired you should arrange for their relaxation. This remains true if person A is yourself. But the basic instinct is to favour giving yourself a break becuase it is hedonistically pleasing. But the reasoning of persons in your position should arrange their stuff in a certain way is a kind of “cold” basis for possibly the same outcome.
A policy that good people should suicide just becuase they are good is very terrible policy. But the flip side is that some bad people will pay unspeakble costs to gain real survivalship percentages. People have a right to life even in an extended “smaller things than life-and-death” way. But life can be overvalued and most real actions carry a slight chance of death.
Then there is the issue of private matters versus public matters. If there is a community of 1000 people that has one shared issue involving the life and death of 100 people and each has private matter involving 1 different person, then via one logic everybody sticking to their own business saves 1000 people vs 100 and via another way a person doing public work over private work saves 100 people vs 1 person. However if 100 persons do public work at the cost of their private work then it is a choice of between 100 vs 100 people. Each of those can think they are being super efficient 100:1 heroes. And those that choose a select few close ones can seem like super ineffcient 1:100 ones.
There can be a difference between having reasons and being able to present them. Humans are known to take cookies from a cookie jar when nobody is looking even if nobody says “I take the cookie althought I am not allowed to”. Even young people know to try to spin it somehow. People will not call themselfs villains but there are villains in the world.
In a situation where your stance is indefencible staying silent might make you more credible than making a bad defence.
Thus it might matter more whether both sides have had opportunity and effective means to express themselfs rather what all sides stories are.
In the case of a an actual policy it could also be that multiple people compromise to uphold the standard and different parties have different rationales for defending the standard. Then it could be that there is no rationale because there is no unified decision making process behind it.
I think it “not being retaliation” makes it any more less edgy. If I credibly threaten to beat you up if you do something I have made an illegal threat even if I never punch someone. And I feel it goes along the same lines on the moral level. The relevant distinction would be emotive “I didn’t really mean to” speech vs credible communication of intent. If it is intentional and credible it is very comparable to actually carrying it out.
There is terminological conflict as in another context “stimming” means alleviating your brain by giving it a (predictable) stimulus, such as tapping your leg or brushing in a certain way. It also has features of stigma around it. This is for especially for people with neurological conditions that have altered needs.
One of the issues with whether solitary confinement is a humane condition to impose is the negative effect that the lack of stimulus does to a human brain. In a certain sense a certain degree of stimming might even be morally required.
I would expect establishment of concetration camps and suspension of freedom of assembly to be pretty big triggers.
However I do not have confidence that that without having the ending be spoiled I would figure out to move out. And even knowing that there were some dark times ahead staying to fight or mititgate the damage would be reasonable options as well.
yes
Having been reading meditation content there was an association while watching Day9 promote their game project Straigts of Danger.
In the game there is a single boat and 20 players each of which controls a walking humanoid on the boat. The players can move their humanoid on buttons to control the boat. Because the players don’t have voice chat explicit coordinatino is hard and lot of multiple people doing contradictory plans at the same time makes multiple non-sensical buttons being pressed make the boat so almost random things.
As a caster/presenter Day9 didn’t himself play but the players probably were watching the stream. Using language like “we” and narrating from the view point of the point it could seem like he was controlling the boat. But infact he was not pressing any boat controlling buttons but only giving slight suggestions to autonumous human players.
Achieving a high level of coordination was referred to as “becoming a mind”. While in there it was more for humorous effect it is an interesting theorethical question can individuals ever make an organisation that properly counted as a separate mind from the constituents and what conditions such a delineation would follow.
I like that my mouth, ears and eyes produce different data in the same situation. An extreme of “unity” could be that every sense reports the same finding. Sure there are situations that the idiom “I can’t believe my eyes” points to but even in that case it can be described as an (ab)use of language, it’s the brains job to form thoughts and the eyes job to register the electromagnetic field.
One shouldn’t delegate thinking to other persons and contextualising others contribution as input rather than output is a raod to be more sensitive to reality.
The Pali terms seems like they might be only familiar within meditation practise/literature and their wider culture associatioins would be less known. And if multiple schools/interpreters attach different connocations it can be hard to notice that there is connocation conflict if some connections are not aired out.
For “halu” my mind immidietly sprang to mind that it seems to not include “välttäminen” that well while craving is supposed to include aversion within it. It also seems odd that the linked text retains “aversio” as a very anglistic term instead of using a more direct finnish term. It might be that using a weird form allows a clear table and not carrying over all the previous baggage attached to previous words. But resultantly the new terms end up very “thin” and “dry”.
The antonym of “välttäminen”, “hakeutuminen” seems also very wrong, roughly “seeking” as opposite of “aversion”.
In more general principles being able to explain a concept/phenomenon in your own words tends to indicate actual grasp of the subject. Being stuck no specific terminology could be a symptom of not really engaging with the ideas or inflexibility from being limited in application ability.
And yet mathematics uses very dry and precise languge because everything is supposed to make sense mechanically (via proofs) and no handwaving should ever be neccesary (yet we might refer to apples and pears when teaching integers).
Well I managed to do a similar thing on english level too. “pleasure” is a derivate of “plea” so that gives an image that finding something pleasurable is a plea to enter into that state. A criminal charge involves asking whether you find the charge to be a description of you, a plea of “quilty as charged” can be understood as “I could have described myself as exactly that”.
The word quilty in finnish is “syyllinen” which translated back could be “causative” as in cause and effect. A somewhat creative way to avoid feelings of quilt is to say “I didn’t do it, my hand did it”. Some points of self-deconstruction might be that this strategy can be followed to the point that there no bigger whole to be left responcible for anythign but everything is covered by the actions of the small bits. As in there is nothing left for the computer to do after you have taken into account what the wires have done. But if you don’t have a model of wires you might be tempted to attribute various effects to a mysterious “computer”.
With the term homing in english it raised questions about which terms would be appropriate for my non-secondary languages.
After Reflecting somewhat list seems like:
“mukava”—adjective for positive craving
“vaivata”—verb for suffering
“välittää”—verb for craving
Becuase of somewhat high systematicity and low language velocity finnish is somewhat more stable in derived words. “Mukava” could be translated as pleasant/nice but there is a case to be made that it really means “compatible with how I am”. Another word near the root word is “muokata” which would be translated as edit is to transform another (to be fit for a specific purpose). “Mukautua” could be translated as “fit in” or to “adapt”.
“vaivata” could also be translated as “bother” but also has a meaning close to “suffer”. The idiom “nähdä vaivaa”—to see suffering—means to expend effort/work. A term referring to observation is curious and suggest a model where you “evaluate a thing as something that should be rectrified” almost automatically leading to start working towards that goal. An almost exact opposite image is in the english idiom “Have an issue? grab a tissue.”, I won’t act on this even if negative valence would be found here (by some other person).
“Välittää” by itself would translate as “to care” but “väli” by itself means space/gap (Viruscounter measures include slogans such as “Välitä” having a double meaning of “Be considerate of others” and “keep a spatial separation”). One could argue the concept has a side of “to determine what the thing means in relation to you”. This would concpetually link caring to self-image reference. Or it could mean what is the “value gap” of two different states, would things really be better if one of the options actually was the case?
Not the most unmysterious but seems like signifcant connocation space with fairly objective meaning grounding for those access to both languages terms.
Reading the mediation information made me experience the video game “Control” in a very different manner. Again finnish cultural knowledge might be a benefit. Them fighting the Hiss is very close to not being able to be satisfied with the nature of their reality. The identity struggles of the protagonist mirroring the relationship of player and game makes things like being “fifth wall breaking” as an admission of trying to enact a psychological shift in the player. But that is somewhat mysterious unless it is to simliar interpretting how twin peaks being a TV show about being a TV show “demystifies”. Your explanativeness may wary.
In physics it is not rare to define things by what measurements they give out and often giving an “objective” contruct it is sufficient how to translate from one coordinate system / measurement to other measurement setting / coordinates. Good epistemology isn’t particularly characterised by having “invariant public objects”.
I can come up with sense of “who is most popular” that has an objective answer. If you asked everybody privately to rank every other persons popularity and had a vote count of some kind some person would probably come on the top of it. I get that there is an attempt to point in that the shared conciousness will regard one member of being more likeable and this mutual understanding building is more muddy than any kind of extrapolated opinion.
I think avoidance of weirdness is not a main motivating factor. Just knowing that this will lead into a rich childhood would be a different and more accurate description on what is going on. It is a “cool story bro”, if hearing it is fun and you care to be entertained then the veracity isn’t that big of a issue.
The limitor off-course for knowledge seekers is that the applicability is reached by focusing on the technical claims. This will bar-off some kind of moves. But those not aware of those limitations might worry about the universal reach being used for wrong purposes ie scientism, opinions trying to disguise as fact. But the fire of truth will only burn falsehoods, otherwise it will be ambivalent. Trying to use “destroyed by truth” to cruelty will be on shady foundation and likely to self-undermine.